King County, Washington about to enact most Restrictive Zoning ordinance in US

FOX News (TV) | June 30, 2004 | Jeff Blogworthy

[Jeff Blogworthy]

I just saw a report on FOX News about King County, Washington. They are about to enact an unbelievably restrictive zoning ordinance. The citizens are up in arms as they should be. If I have it right, the ordinance specifies that a land owner who owns over 2.5 acres can only build on 10 percent of their land. The remaining acreage is basically condemned as a nature preserve. The owner cannot even erect a barn. These events are of particular interest to me, since I am a land surveyor in the state of Tennessee. Freepers having any more information please contact me with as much detail as possible. Do we have any freepers in Washington who can give more information? This is an outrageous encroachment on all of our individual liberties.

[July 4th]

This might be an obscene enough ordinance that it falls under regulatory takings law. Essentially, when you're deprived of use of your land to such a degree that it can't be used for anything, the government must provide you with just compensation because they've "taken" your land.

I'm a little hazy on the law since it changed a couple of years ago with the Lucas case. Maybe a good property lawyer can jump in on this. I don't do property.

More info: What is not clear is the extent to which the Takings Clause offers property owners protection against reductions in property value caused by government regulations—so-called regulatory takings. In many instances, especially land-use regulations, the effect of regulations is to impose substantial costs on some property owners in the name of achieving what the government has determined to be a public benefit. Thus, many regulatory-induced reductions in property value are potentially characterized as takings subject to the just compensation provisions of the Takings Clause. Indeed, compensation for a typical regulatory taking would seem to fit within the primary justifications for the Takings Clause—encouraging investment, preventing inequitable treatment, and restraining government.

Nevertheless, this approach to property rights and regulatory takings offers too much—almost every government action impacts property values, and it would be totally unworkable to require compensation every time a government action causes a diminution in value. But that does not mean that there should be no protection against regulatory takings. Proponents of greater property rights protection have long recognized the need for a principled approach to regulatory takings that is consistent with the overall purposes of the Takings Clause. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3g.html

[SAJ]

You're entirely accurate, of course. However, for whatever reason, you apparently refuse to acknowledge that the self-important ''moron in a cubicle'' is not in any way interested in ''preservation'' or anything else other than the retention and extension of its (not 'his', not 'her') own meagre power over your and other citizens' lives.

[Ramius]

I refuse to acknowledge? Hell... I'm the one beating the drum that nobody hears!!!

It's these self-important numbskulls in local gubm't that are the biggest threat! Yeesh...

[SAJ]

OK, fine. We've gotten that far. The object of the exercise is to either remove these dolts from any semblance of power, or to see to it that they cannot or WILL not exercise their misbegotten power.

The former policy is preferable, but, given the incredibly high level of political inertia in most places in the nation, very difficult.

The latter is generally distasteful, typically involves ruining reputations and related tactics -- but, take your pick. Which do you want?

Civil ''servants'', whom, as Heinlein noted decades ago ''...in a mature society are semantically equivalent to civil masters.''

Or, cringing bootlickers, afraid to do anything lest someone either sue them or kick their a** up around their ears.

Or, marginally rational humans, handed a strict code of behaviour and consistent rules of conduct, inculcated with the notion ''thou SHALT serve the public, and thou SHALT take, deservedly, all the abuse the public heapeth upon thee when thou fucketh up.''

Your choice...but you can't GET your choice until, quite literally, you demand it. To date, the citizenry has been satisfied with Door #1. This way, ultimately, lies revolution, hardly a good result.

Best wishes, and FReegards!

[TheConservator]

Interestingly, the Washington State constitution contains, in its bill of rights, a clause comparable to but more restrictive than the Federal constitution. Washington's constitution provides that the government may not take or impair private property without making just compensation.

The liberal-dominated Washington Supreme Court issued a decision several years ago effectively writing the words "or impair" out of the state constitution, saying that this clause would be construed identically to the comparable clause in the federal constitution.

[RobRoy]

>>In my City, the ratio is 2.5% in the open space areas, now THAT is restrictive!
Oh, and to build your home you need City Council approval<<


You must live in the old Soviet Union. I live in the US where men are free to use their land as they see fit!

Or have I missed something?

[freeasinbeer]

Yes, you missed the 70's when the enviro-nuts out here in California decided that they know better than us.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

This is being pushed by Ron Sims, the King County Executive, who happens to be running for governor this election year. It is also Ron Sims who is trying to give public land to homeless tent camps.

Apparently he has a Robin Hood complex. Or maybe he's just a commie.

[sionnsar]

Welcome to the State of Washington.....if it's not a fruit, or a nut, it's a flake!

Hey waittaminute! First off, you forgot the highly active Puget Sound Chapter of Free Republic. You also forgot all our friends in the generally conservative eastern half of the state. Believe me, if Sodo.. er, Seattle, were to slip down into the Sound, Bush would win this state, um, by a landslide.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Kirby discussing this now.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

I finally found a link to the story with more detail.

Washington Land Grab